© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike International License (CC BY-SA 4.0, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the Article is properly cited.
Corresponding Author: Barbara Uliasz-Misiak; e-mail: uliasz@agh.edu.pl
1 Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland; ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3294-1246; e-mail: tarkowski@min-pan.krakow.pl
2 AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Drilling, Oil and Gas, Kraków, Poland; ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8742-7100; e-mail: uliasz@agh.edu.pl
DOI: 10.24425/gsm.2021.136290
Radosław TaRkowski1, BARBARA UlIASz-MISIAK2
use of underground space for the storage of selected gases
(cH
4, H
2, and co
2) – possible conflicts of interest
introduction
The underground space has been used by people since ancient times. Initially, it was used as a shelter (caves) and for exploration and the exploitation of mineral resources and ground-water. The development of mining enabled the rock mass to be used for other purposes, such as transport, infrastructure, the storage of liquids and gases, substances, and waste
(Przybycin et al. 2011; Evans et al. 2009).
The limited land space and the safety of storage are the reasons for using underground structures. This is the case with shelters, data systems (e.g. documents, films, photographs), computer systems, etc. The most shallow facilities, offices and storage sites, are usually built up to about 10 m BGl (below sea level) (Figure 1). Social facilities (cultural and recreational spaces, railway, and subway stations) are located up to a depth of 20 meters. Industrial
facilities (factories and storage sites) are located up to a depth of 30 m. Transport infrastruc-ture (tunnels, parking lots, waste processing plants, or fuel tanks) is typically built at a depth of 40 m. The exploitation of mineral resources and groundwater and underground storage of fuels, natural gas, carbon dioxide, and radioactive or hazardous waste is carried out at
greater depths (250–3000 m BGl) (Uliasz-Misiak and Przybycin 2015; Nordmark and Peira
2003; Evans et al. 2009). One of the ways of using the rock mass is underground storage of waste and substances in natural pores, crevices, rock caverns, and mining excavations. Natural gas, liquid fuels, carbon dioxide, heat energy, hydrogen, and others are stored un-derground.
The analysis of the literature underlines the need for the rational management of under-ground space, especially when the rock mass can be used for various purposes (the storage of substances, exploitation of raw materials or water, etc.). Taking the current status and the future of rock mass development into account, a guideline for the development of the under-ground space use in Poland was proposed (Uliasz-Misiak and Przybycin 2016). The authors
H s to ra g e 2 C O s to ra g e 2 C H s to ra g e 4 P u b li c fa c il it ie s C o m m e rc ia l fa c il it ie s P u b li c in fr a s tr u c tu re fa c il it ie s E x p lo it a ti o n o f m in e ra l re s o u rc e s T ra ff ic fa c il it ie s In d u s tr ia l fa c il it ie s D E P T H 10 20 30 40 50 250 400 800 3500 [m] U n d e rg ro u n d s to ra g e s it e s
Fig. 1. The use of the rock mass depending on the depth (based on Przybycin et al. 2011, amended) Rys. 1. sposoby wykorzystania górotworu w zależności od głębokości
discussed the actions in the field of valorization and protection of geological structures, highlighting their significant and growing importance to the national economy. in addition, the implementation of legislation regarding rock mass management was proposed.
An urgent need to coordinate the use of underground and above-ground spaces was ex-pressed by Bartel and Janssen (2016). The authors emphasized the need for strategic and comprehensive spatial planning of land development and the rock mass. This is the way to avoid future conflicts between stakeholders. in order to ensure the best use of underground space, it should include procedures for designating areas for certain purposes.
A comprehensive planning of the subsurface use (e.g. for various forms of energy stora- ge) was presented by Bauer et al. (2013). The methodology they proposed was based on the detailed characteristics of underground storage sites and the phenomena that take place with-in them. The mentioned methodology allows us to assign specific energy storage methods to appropriate geological structures below the earth’s surface.
Island power systems and dispersed energy consumers in poorly developed areas, com-bined with a large, usually dominant share of renewable energy sources, create new opportu-nities and challenges for energy storage. However, this requires an assessment of the power supply systems and the planned use of underground space (Erdinc et al. 2015; Tarkowski and Uliasz-Misiak 2003).
The development of underground space is extremely important for the expansion of large urban centers. Delmastro et al. (2016), discussing the energy supply to cities, suggested the simultaneous use of both above-ground and underground space. They emphasized that this approach can affect city livability and improve public health. Carneiro et al. (2019) indicated restrictions regarding the use of underground space related to environmental conditions, security, and social aspects.
The rational management of underground space, especially when it can be used for vari- ous purposes, requires a comprehensive approach. It should include procedures for deter-mining areas for certain purposes, the development of the rock mass, and land surface de-velopment, especially in areas of large urban agglomerations. This, in turn, should translate into the security of human activities in various areas and enable us to avoid conflicts be-tween entities interested in using the same underground space, rational management of the rock mass and raw materials. The question of demand and sustainable use of underground space has recently received more and more attention. The possibilities of using it for the stora- ge of industrial gases – CH4, H2, and CO2 are discussed by the authors. To meet the needs of various entities interested in the raised issues, the use of the rock mass was presented in the context of its usefulness for the storage the discussed gases and the legal aspects of such activities. attention was drawn to the possible conflicts of interest that may arise when using the same underground space for different purposes.
1. Experience in the field of underground gas storage
Rock formations are suitable for the storage of large amounts of fluids with limited or minimal environmental impact. The large-scale gas storage for energy applications in vari- ous forms allows for their better integration with renewable energy sources (Blacharski et al. 2017; Hache and Palle 2019; Haghi et al. 2018; Hosseini and wahid 2016; Mah et al. 2019), balancing energy supply and demand (abdin et al. 2019; aneke and wang 2016; Tagliapietra et al. 2019), increasing the energy security, and better management of the energy network
(Azzuni and Breyer 2018; Blanco and Faaij 2018; Peng et al. 2016). The storage of gas en-ables the transition towards a low-emission economy (Ma et al. 2018; Parra et al. 2019; Sam-satli S. and SamSam-satli N.J. 2019; Sgobbi et al. 2016) as it allows significant amounts of carbon dioxide to be trapped (Murray et al. 2008) and the use of “clean” fuels such as hydrogen.
a specific rock formation may be suitable for various forms of underground energy sto- rage. Therefore, there is a competition for the use of underground space for energy storage. The question arises: which technology to choose, which one is the most suitable for the geo- logical formation under consideration? Matos et al. (2019) suggested that numerous factors should be taken into consideration, including: reservoir geology, reactivity of the storage site (deposit and the overlying formation) to the injected fluid, energy density, technology efficiency, sustainable underground space planning, etc. Furthermore, underground space planning should take the state of land development in the underground storage area and both technical and environmental factors determining the safety of gas storage into account. Carneiro et al. (2019) discussed the methodology and results of studies aimed at identifying geological formations suitable for the large-scale storage of renewable energy in Portugal.
The main stored products include fossil fuels (natural gas and crude oil) and their pro-ducts (fuel, liquefied gas), and, more recently, compressed air or hydrogen. The petroleum industry has many years of experience in natural gas storage, both in porous formations
and salt caverns (Gąska 2012; GwPC-ioGCC 2017; Yucekaya 2013). The intensive develop-
ment of the technology for the underground storage of natural gas began after the Second world war and was associated with the inability to meet the demand for natural gas supplied by pipelines. For several dozen years, the oil industry has routinely injected liquids into rock formations, reservoir waters, or acid gases (H2S and CO2) (Tarkowski and Stopa 2007; Uliasz-Misiak and Chruszcz-lipska 2017). In 2018, there were 662 underground natural gas storage sites (with a capacity of 421 billion Nm 3) worldwide. Most storage sites were located in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs – 73.4% (486 sites), salt caverns – 15% (99 sites), and aquifers – 11.6% (75 installations) (Figure 2). while most of the gas is stored in depleted hydrocarbon deposits (79% of global working gas volumes), salt caverns account for about a quarter of the global deliverability (Cornot-Gandolphe 2019).
In 2020, there were 7 natural gas storage facilities in Poland, located in the Polish low-lands, the Carpathians, and the Carpathian Foredeep. Most of them are located in depleted hydrocarbon deposits, two in salt caverns leached in salt domes (Mogilno storage site) and in a bedded salt deposit (Kosakowo storage site). The active capacity of all gas storage facili-
ties in Poland is 3174.80 million m3(PGNiG 2020). By 2030, it is assumed that the storage
capacity of underground facilities will be expanded to a minimum of 43.8 Twh (Ministry
of Climate and Environment 2020). One of the planned underground gas storage facilities will be the damasławek storage facility located in the salt formation. where approximately 1,000 million m3 of natural gas will be stored in 20 salt caverns (GaZ-sYsTEM sa 2016).
The practical experience with hydrogen storage is still limited. The experience in the field of underground storage of natural gas can be transferred to the other gases under con-sideration; however, the specificity of hydrogen requires research and testing before this technology is implemented on an industrial scale. The first salt caverns for the storage of pure hydrogen were built near Teesside, United Kingdom, in the early 1970s and are still operational. The stored gas contains 95% H2 and 3–4% CO2. Three more caverns were built in the USA in the 1980s and at the turn of the 21st century in Texas (operated by Praxair and Conoco Philips). These caverns are used in the petrochemical industry (Crotogino et al. 2018; Pottier and Blondin 1995). In Europe we also have experience in the storage of hydro-gen-carbon oxides mixtures (town gas). This gas contains 50–60% hydrogen, the remaining gases are: carbon oxides (15–20%), methane(10–20%), and trace amounts of nitrogen. It is used for heating and lighting purposes. The salt cavern facility in Kiel (Germany), the aqui-fer gas storage reservoir in lobodice (Czech Republic), or Beynes storage unit (France) can all serve as examples (Panfilov 2016).
Injecting CO2 into reservoir rocks is a practice that has been used for several dozen years in the petroleum industry for enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) or the enhanced produc-tion of coal bed methane (ECBM) (ways of using carbon dioxide). Industrial-scale CO2- -EOR projects have been implemented since the mid-1970s, and in 2017 there were 166 such
depleted fields aquifers salt caverns 486 99 77 332,59 50,52 33,68 number of UGS [pcs] working gas capacity [thous. mln m ]3
Fig. 2. Underground natural gas storage sites in the world in 2018 (based on Cornot-Gandolphe 2019) Rys. 2. Podziemne magazyny gazu na świecie w 2018 roku
projects worldwide (IEA 2019). we have less experience with Co2 injections into deep, unexploited coal seams for enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) recovery, e.g. micro-pilot tests in Alberta (Canada Burlington project, San Juan Basin, USA), the RECOPOl project (Poland), or the Qinshui Basin project (China) (liu et al. 2017). The use of the rock mass for the geological storage of CO2 (Carbon Capture and Storage – CCS) is now considered as an option to reduce the anthropogenic emissions of this gas (Bachu 2008; Holloway 2005). Cur-rently, there are numerous research and industrial installations for the underground storage of carbon dioxide worldwide, including: Sleipner – in the North Sea, Snøhvit – in the Barents sea, in salah in algeria, or weyburn (Canada). The Co2 storage at the Sleipner (1 million tons of CO2 per year) and snøhvit fields is carried out using a brine aquifer; in the in salah storage site carbon dioxide is stored in a natural gas reservoir; in the case of the weyburn field, a carbon dioxide injection was used to increase oil recovery (Aminu et al. 2017; Metz et al. 2005).
2. geological and reservoir aspects of underground storage
of cH
4, H
2, and co
2The use of geological structures in porous rocks (aquifers, oil and gas reservoirs) or caverns leached in salt deposits is considered for the storage CH4, H2, and CO2. The former occur naturally as geological traps in which hydrocarbon reservoirs were accumulated or in the form of elevated anticlinal structures in aquifers. The latter were created as a result
of human activity (Ebigbo et al. 2013; GwPC-ioGCC 2017; kruck and Crotogino 2013;
wójcicki et al. 2014).
A detailed analysis of the geological and reservoir conditions for underground storage of CH4, H2 and CO2 in porous and salt rocks takes the characteristics of reservoir rocks, over-burden, and interlayers of other non-salt rocks and their properties that affect the behavior, storage capacity, rock tightness, and the operation of an underground storage facility into account. The factors that have the greatest influence on gas storage are the most important ones. They primarily concern the tightness of the underground storage facility (liu et al. 2015; Teodoriu and Bello 2020; Verga 2018; wang et al. 2019), geochemical interactions with reservoir fluids and the rock matrix (Crotogino et al. 2018; De Silva et al. 2015; Henkel et al. 2014; Tarkowski and wdowin 2011; Yekta et al. 2018), microbiological interactions
(Bordenave et al. 2013; Hagemann et al. 2016; Hemme and van Berk 2017; Panfilov 2010; Tarkowski et al. 2009; Toleukhanov et al. 2015), and aspects related to the economics of the project (e.g. the amount of working gas and cushion gas) and storage efficiency (Kruck and Crotogino 2013; Matos et al. 2019).
The security of underground storage of CH4, H2, and CO2 is the main issue considered when selecting underground storage sites. This is related to the efficiency of underground gas storage or the losses associated with the gas leakage. The lack of gas migration con-firms the tightness of the underground storage facility and its proper operation (Amid et al.
2016; Tarkowski and Stopa 2007; Verga 2018). The quality and tightness of the cap rock is particularly important when choosing a geological structure for an underground hydrogen storage facility. This gas, due to its specific physico-chemical properties, is characterized by the highest mobility and permeability. Hydrogen was found to diffuse fastest from the rock matrix towards the Earth’s surface (Abdalla et al. 2018). The storage of this gas is the most difficult. Therefore, the greatest restrictions should be used when choosing a storage loca-tion. The most suitable conditions for hydrogen storage can be found in salt caverns (Karn-kowski and Czapowski 2007; Kruck and Crotogino 2013; Tar(Karn-kowski and Czapowski 2018). The depleted natural gas reservoirs have good tightness (wei et al. 2016; Chen 2015), which confirms its natural accumulation. The tightness of oil storage sites is variable (better for methane and carbon dioxide, worse for hydrogen). In the absence of natural gas in an oil field, there is no certainty as to the natural tightness of the reservoir. additional tests are required to confirm the tightness. in the case of aquifers, their tightness must be confirmed by a detailed analysis. The presence of low permeability rocks in the overburden does not fully guarantee the tightness of the storage site and the occurrence of faults may be a serious problem.
The exploration of individual geological structures (aquifers, oil and gas reservoirs, or caverns leached within salt formations) is variable. Generally, the depleted hydrocarbon re- servoirs have the most favorable geological and reservoir characteristics; locally, the degree of exploration is the highest in exploitation areas of rock salt deposits. Identifying the areas for underground storage facilities at aquifers requires expensive analysis. Usually, aquifer structures have the greatest storage capacity; however, they are not always the key parameter determining the suitability of the structure for storage. when it comes to hydrocarbon reser-voirs, their storage capacity is determined by the size of the reservoir and its depletion. when it comes to salt caverns, the storage capacity is equal to the size of the leached salt cavern.
Geochemical and microbiological interactions of the discussed gases with the under-ground environment, namely rock matrix and reservoir waters, are of great importance and should be considered when choosing storage locations. The above mentioned interactions can have both positive and negative effects, i.e. improve or deteriorate reservoir parameters of both the underground storage site and sealing rocks of the poorly permeable overburden. in the case of underground storage of carbon dioxide, these interactions mainly affect aqui-fers and depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and are conditioned by the reactivity of the rock matrix with the gas dissolved in water. In depleted hydrocarbon deposits, the interaction of the stored hydrogen with carbon dioxide may result in the formation of methane (Ebigbo et al. 2013; Shi et al. 2020), which, in some cases, can be seen as a positive aspect of the storage. The reactivity of rock salt, with the exception of thin interlayers of clay rocks, is low. The solubility of the considered gases in water is varied, but negligible in the case of hydrogen. it is the highest for carbon dioxide, which has a positive effect (mineral sequestration) on the efficiency of its storage. Microbiological interactions are particularly important in porous rocks, as they can lead to the deterioration of rock reservoir parameters or the clogging of the gas injection /collection system.
when analyzing other aspects related to the storage of CH4, H2, and CO2, attention should be paid to the economic side and technical conditions of the construction and opera- tion of the discussed sites. The adaptation of depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs for under-ground gas storage is less expensive than the use of aquifers or leached salt caverns. In the case of the storage in depleted oil or gas reservoirs, it is possible to use the existing infra-structure. Storage facilities in salt caverns occupy a smaller area than other types storage sites, which makes them easier to monitor and operate; in addition, their construction time is shorter. The brine produced during leaching is a significant problem, as it must be removed in an environmentally friendly manner or used for industrial applications.
3. Conflicts of interest related to underground gas storage in Poland
The underground space is owned by the state, and its use should be regulated by law for the purpose of rational, balanced, and safe use. Thus, the most important regulations are those that enable us to protect these places against threats resulting from improper manage-ment and exploitation of the rock mass and allow their use in accordance with the energy policy of the state. The mentioned regulations must meet the needs of companies dealing with gas and waste storage, stakeholders interested in renewable energy sources, energy companies, including those producing renewable energy, petrochemical plants, and trans-port companies.Underground gas storage involves numerous aspects, ranging from whether a given gas is perceived as a raw material or a substance, through the transport of gas to an underground storage facility, storage, and ending with many years of responsibility for an underground sto- rage facility after the end of gas injection.
Nowadays, more and more people realize that human activities are causing climate change on a global scale. without limiting this impact, and therefore without changes in sectors responsible for CO2 emissions (energy, transport, etc.), many environmental changes are inevitable. Societies are increasingly willing to adapt to change, although they are far from being aware of the need for change, wanting them, and agreeing that these changes have a direct impact on our situation. The awareness of the process and the safety of under- ground gas storage, combined with the common knowledge about climate change and the need to combat it, should translate into greater public acceptance for the underground stora- ge of carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen.
3.1. Conflicts related to the use of the rock mass
In Poland, activities related to the prospecting, exploration, and exploitation of mineral deposits and underground storage of substances are regulated by the Geological and Mining law (Act of June 9, 2011 – Geological and Mining law 2011), as amended) and by
regula-tions of the Minister of the Environment. The underground storage of substances, including gases, requires a license to be granted by the Minister of the Environment for a limited period of time, not less than 3 years and not more than 50 years. The concession entitles you to conduct economic activity in the designated area. Operating without a license is illegal and has criminal consequences.
The license is granted for activities “proposed” by the entrepreneur, e.g. mining, ex-ploitation of thermal waters, or underground storage of substances. The decision shall define the scope of the license. Therefore, at the licensing stage, various ways of using the same geological structures should be taken into account, and the license should be issued for prio- rity activity from the point of view of the licensing authority (Uliasz-Misiak and Przybycin 2016).
Due to the favorable geological conditions (the occurrence of thick sedimentary rocks),
the storage of H2(Tarkowski 2017, 2019; Luboń and Tarkowski 2020; Lewandowska-Śmierz-
chalska et al. 2018; lankof and Tarkowski 2020) and CO2(Marek et al. 2011; Tarkowski and Uliasz-Misiak 2006; Tarkowski et al. 2009; Šliaupa et al. 2013) in the Polish lowlands is cur-rently being considered; the storage of natural gas is already being implemented (Czapowski 2019; Gąska 2012). Structures considered as potential storage sites for carbon dioxide, hydro-gen, and natural gas are typically anticlines where reservoir layers form aquifers in lower Cretaceous, lower Jurassic, or lower Triassic rocks. At the same time, they are most suit-able for the extraction of thermal waters. In such a case, the creation of an underground storage facility, in accordance with the Geological and Mining law, could prevent the use of these waters. a conflict of interest may also arise in the case of using salt domes as gas, fuel, or hazardous or radioactive waste repositories. The Polish lowland is prospective for the ex-ploitation of conventional and unconventional deposits of hydrocarbons and other minerals, the exploitation of which may interfere with other ways of developing the rock mass.
In addition to the above-mentioned problems related to the possibility of using geological structures in various ways (carbon dioxide, hydrogen or natural gas storage), there may be conflicts related to the use of rocks within the same formation but at different depths. in the same location, but at different depths, conditions may allow for both underground storage and the exploitation of mineral resources.
3.2. Spatial planning conflicts
Conducting an effective economic and ecological policy requires rational use and the shaping of space by public authorities, i.e. an appropriate spatial policy. One of its main elements is determining the way of land development. In this regard, in Poland, spatial de-velopment plans (and, in their absence, land use plans) prepared on a commune, poviat, or voivodeship scale are one of the main tools of this policy (Nowak 2019). These documents determine land development conditions and take the areas of mineral deposits occurrence
take the regulations on rock mass management into account (Uliasz-Misiak and Przybycin 2016). The existing regulations only apply to the exploitation of minerals and the
under-ground storage of substances and waste disposal (Act of June 9, 2011 – Geological and
Mining law 2011).
land use plans and spatial development plans should ensure the rational management of environmental resources. The spatial development plans should take mineral deposits and the needs of their exploitation into consideration. The spatial development plans do not take the spatial development of the subsurface, and thus the ways of using geological structures into account (Uliasz-Misiak and Przybycin 2016).
Therefore, the management of the rock mass is part of the broadly understood protection of deposits, understood as the protection of areas against such development that would pre-vent access to the deposit (Nieć 2008; Uliasz-Misiak and winid 2012). In this regard, the reso- lution of the Council of Ministers on the National Spatial Development Concept 2030 indi-cates that the state policy should ensure the protection of mineral deposits against irrational and illegal exploitation. It also states that it is necessary to introduce legal provisions and the protection of mineral deposits and the possibility of using them in accordance with the utility value on the basis of the exploitation plans for individual mineral deposits prepared by the Minister of Investment and Economic Development. According to this document, the plans should constitute the basis for issuing a license for underground gas storage, and po-tential concession areas are to be included inthe spatial development plans (National Spatial Development Concept 2030 2012).
3.3. Conflicts related to environmental protection
In areas protected by the Nature Conservation Act, restrictions on activities related to underground gas storage, depending on the type of area, may apply. The most restrictive restrictions related to business activities, including bans, apply in national parks and nature reserves. It is not possible to carry out activities related to the exploitation of minerals and the underground storage of substances in the areas mentioned. less restrictive regulations apply in natural landscape parks and nature parks. It is forbidden to implement projects that may have a significant negative impact on the environment, except for those for which the preparation of an environmental impact report is not obligatory, and the environmental
impact assessment procedure has shown no adverse impact on the landscape park (Nature
Conservation Act 2004). In addition to the bans listed in the Act, national and natural land-scape parks may have additional restrictions and prohibitions included in protection plans. There are no bans on Natura 2000 sites and the protection system is more flexible. within the Natura 2000 site, however, investments that are harmful to the environment are prohibited
(Uliasz-Misiak and winid 2012).
The protection plans for national and natural landscape parks identify the existing and potential internal and external threats and define the methods of their elimination or
reduc-tion (Gawroński 2002; Radecki 2007; stachowski 2008). The plans prepared for landscape parks take the requirements for mining activities into account, including: the range and scale of extraction, duration, and exploitation methods (Radwanek-Bąk 2007). Including activi-ties related to the underground storage of gases is not required.
3.4. social acceptance issues
The issue of social acceptance of the storage of CH4, H2, and CO2(Clarkson 2013; Even-sen and Brown-Steiner 2018; Teodoriu and Bello 2020) requires further legislation. The storage of natural gas, carried out for several decades by oil companies, does not raise major social concerns. The abovementioned companies have developed methods of solving prob-lems with local communities. we already have significant experience with social acceptance
for the underground storage of carbon dioxide (l’Orange Seigo et al. 2014; Roberts and
Mander 2011; Tcvetkov et al. 2019), unlike in the case of underground hydrogen storage
(zaunbrecher et al. 2016). For example, the results of carbon capture and storage (CCS) for Germany were presented by: (Arning et al. 2019; Braun et al. 2018; Dütschke et al. 2016), for Poland (Tarkowski et al. 2014), for China (Chen et al. 2015). The growing social aware-ness of climate change is also associated with the need to acquire alternative energy sources (including the production and extraction of methane and hydrogen) and the fact that the energy source itself must also be stored somewhere. This should translate into greater social acceptance for both underground storage of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This is further supported by the fact that, according to Roberts and Mander (2011), understanding the sig-nificance and seriousness of decisions makes it easier to accept a given solution. This also applies to the underground storage of gas.
conclusions
The use of the rock mass in the context of its suitability for the storage of CH4, H2,
and CO2 was presented. Possible conflicts of interest related to the use of geological
structures, spatial planning, nature protection, and social acceptance, which may arise in the case of using the same underground space for the storage of various gases, were indicated (Figure 3).
The storage of CH4 has been carried out since the beginning of the 20th century, the injection of CO2 for various purposes has been used for several decades in the oil industry (for over 20 years as an option to reduce the anthropogenic emissions of this gas). The under- ground storage of H2 is carried out in only a few industrial installations. The experience gained from underground natural gas storage can be transferred to the storage of other gases. Limited experience with hydrogen storage and its specific properties will require extensive research before wide-scale implementation of the technology.
Geological and reservoir conditions are crucial when selecting structures (aquifers, oil and gas reservoirs, or salt caverns) for the storage of CH4, H2, and CO2. These factors have the greatest impact on gas storage, ensuring the safety of underground storage and the ab-sence of undesirable geochemical and microbiological interactions with the fluids and the rock matrix. Economic aspects and the associated storage efficiency should also be taken into consideration.
Underground storage of CH4, H2, and CO2 may cause conflicts related to the use of the same geological structures, land use, and nature protection in the area of activity. The lack of regulations setting priorities in the development of the rock mass may result in the use of the same geological structures for various purposes (exploitation of minerals, storage of various gases, etc.).
The introduction of appropriate provisions concerning spatial development would enable the sustainable management of the rock mass. At the same time, it would facilitate decisions on how to manage the site at different levels of decision-making.
Conflicts
of
interest
spa al development
-the lack of legal regula ons does not allow for sustainable management of the rock
mass and makes it difficult to make decisions on land
management
environmental protec on - lack of legal
regula ons may prevent the crea on of underground storage facili es in structures located in protected areas knowledge of the technology and ensuring
the safety of underground gas storage should translate
into growing social acceptance for CO2
storage
rock mass use - lack of
legal regula ons may result in the use of the same geological
structures
Fig. 3. Conflicts of interest related to underground storage of natural gas, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen Rys. 3. konflikty interesów związane z podziemnym magazynowaniem gazu ziemnego,
Failure to include other methods of rock mass development than the exploitation of mineral deposits in the legal regulations on protected areas and nature conservation plans may prevent the creation of underground storage in structures located in selected pro- tected areas.
The awareness of the technology and the safety of underground gas storage, combined with common knowledge about climate change and the need to combat it, should translate into greater social acceptance for the underground storage of CO2 and H2. Many years of experience of oil companies in the field of storage of CH4 will be helpful in this regard.
This work was supported by the AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow (research subvention No. 16.16.190.779); the Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences (research subvention).
references
abdalla et al. 2018 – abdalla, a.M., Hossain, s., Nisfindy, o.B., azad, a.T., dawood, M. and azad, a.k. 2018. Hydrogen Production, Storage, Transportation and Key Challenges with Applications: A Review. Energy Con-
version and Management 165, pp. 602–627.
abdin et al. 2019 – abdin, Z., Zafaranloo, a., Rafiee, a., Mérida, w., Lipiński, w. and khalilpour, k.R. 2020. Hydro-gen as an Energy Vector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 120, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109620. Act of 9 June 2011 – Geological and Mining law (2011) Poland: Journal of laws.
amid et al. 2016 – amid, a., Mignard, d. and wilkinson, M. 2016. seasonal storage of Hydrogen in a depleted Natural Gas Reservoir. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41(12), pp. 5549–5558.
Aminu et al. 2017 – Aminu, M.D., Nabavi, S.A., Rochelle, C.A. and Manovic, V. 2017. A Review of Developments in Carbon Dioxide Storage’. Applied Energy 208, pp. 1389–1419.
aneke, M. and wang, M. 2016. Energy storage Technologies and Real Life applications – a state of the art Review.
Applied Energy 179, pp. 350–377.
arning et al. 2019 – arning, k., offermann-van Heek, J., Linzenich, a., kaetelhoen, a., sternberg, a., Bardow, a. and Ziefle, M. 2019. same or different? insights on Public Perception and acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage or Utilization in Germany. Energy Policy 125, pp. 235–249.
Azzuni, A. and Breyer, C. 2018. Energy Security and Energy Storage Technologies. Energy Procedia 155 (Novem-ber), pp. 237–258.
Bachu, S. 2008. CO2 Storage in Geological Media: Role, Means, Status and Barriers to Deployment. [In:] Progress
in Energy and Combustion Science 34(2), pp. 254–273.
Bartel, S. and Janssen, G. 2016. Underground Spatial Planning – Perspectives and Current Research in Germany.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 55, pp. 112–117.
Bauer et al. 2013 – Bauer, S., Beyer, C., Dethlefsen, F., Dietrich, P., Duttmann, R., Ebert, M., Feeser, V., Görke, U., köber, R., kolditz, o., Rabbel, w., schanz, T., schäfer, d., würdemann, H. and dahmke, a. 2013. impacts of the Use of the Geological Subsurface for Energy Storage: An Investigation Concept. Environmental Earth
Sciences 70(8), pp. 3935–3943.
Blacharski et al. 2017 – Blacharski, T., Kogut, K. and Szurlej, A. 2017. The Perspectives for the Use of Hydro-gen for Electricity Storage Considering the Foreign Experience. E3S Web of Conferences 14, DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/20171401045.
Blanco, H. and Faaij, A. 2018. A Review at the Role of Storage in Energy Systems with a Focus on Power to Gas and long-Term Storage. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81, pp. 1049–1086.
Bordenave et al. 2013 – Bordenave, S., Chatterjee, I. and Voordouw, G. 2013. Microbial Community Structure and Microbial Activities Related to CO2 Storage Capacities of a Salt Cavern. International Biodeterioration and
Biodegradation 81, pp. 82–87.
Braun et al. 2018 – Braun, C., Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., Rehdanz, K. and Schmidt, U. 2018. Public Perception of Climate Engineering and Carbon Capture and Storage in Germany: Survey Evidence. Climate Policy 18(4), pp. 471–484.
Carneiro et al. 2019 – Carneiro, J.F., Matos, C.R. and van Gessel, S. 2019. Opportunities for large-Scale Ener-gy Storage in Geological Formations in Mainland Portugal. Renewable and Sustainable EnerEner-gy Reviews 99, pp. 201–211.
Chen et al. 2015 – Chen, z.A., li, Qi, liu, l.C., zhang, X., Kuang, l., Jia, l. and liu, G. 2015. A large National Survey of Public Perceptions of CCS Technology in China. Applied Energy 158, pp. 366–377.
Clarkson, C.R. 2013. Production data analysis of Unconventional Gas wells: Review of Theory and Best Practices.
International Journal of Coal Geology 109–110, pp. 101–146.
Cornot-Gandolphe, S. 2019. Underground Gas Storage in the World – 2019 Status. Rueil Malmaison. [Online] https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/1982707/Overview of underground gas storage in the world 2018 (1).pdf [Accessed: 2020-12-05].
Crotogino et al. 2018 – Crotogino, F., Schneider, G.-S. and Evans, D.J. 2018. Renewable Energy Storage in Geolo-gical Formations. Journal of Power and Energy 232(1), pp. 100–114.
Czapowski, G. 2019. Prospects of Hydrogen Storage Caverns location in the Upper Permian (zechstein). Biuletyn
Państwowego Instytutu Geologicznego 477, pp. 21–54.
Delmastro et al. 2016 – Delmastro, C., lavagno, E. and Schranz, l. 2016. Energy and Underground. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 55, pp. 96–102.
De Silva et al. 2015 – De Silva, G.P.D., Ranjith, P.G. and Perera, M.S.A. 2015. Geochemical Aspects of CO2 Seques-tration in Deep Saline Aquifers: A Review. Fuel 155, pp. 128–143.
dütschke et al. 2016 – dütschke, E., wohlfarth, k., Höller, s., Viebahn, P., schumann, d. and Pietzner, k. 2016. differences in the Public Perception of CCs in Germany depending on Co2 Source, Transport Option and Storage location. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 53, pp. 149–159.
Ebigbo et al. 2013 – Ebigbo, a., Golfier, F. and Quintard, M. 2013. a Coupled, Pore-scale Model for Methanogenic Microbial Activity in Underground Hydrogen Storage. Advances in Water Resources 61, pp. 74–85.
Erdinc et al. 2015 – Erdinc, O., Paterakis, N.G. and Catalaõ, J.P.S. 2015. Overview of Insular Power Systems under Increasing Penetration of Renewable Energy Sources: Opportunities and Challenges. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews 52, pp. 333–346.
Evans et al. 2009 – Evans, D., Stephenson, M. and Shaw, R. 2009. The Present and Future Use of “land” below Ground. Land Use Policy 26, Suplem, S302–S316.
Evensen, D. and Brown-Steiner, B. 2018. Public Perception of the Relationship between Climate Change and Uncon- ventional Gas Development (“Fracking”) in the US. Climate Policy 18(5), pp. 556–567.
Gąska, k.J. 2012. Monograph of Underground Gas Storage in Poland (Monografia podziemnych magazynów gazu
w Polsce). warszawa: oficyna wydawnicza asPRa-JR (in Polish).
Gawroński, k. 2002. Local spatial Planning as a Tool for Protecting and shaping the Environment (Miejscowe
planowanie przestrzenne jako narzędzie ochrony i kształtowania środowiska). Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska
4, pp. 479–495 (in Polish).
GaZ-sYsTEM a.s. 2016. Underground Gas Storage Facility Damasławek. [Online] https://en.gaz-system.pl/nasze -inwestycje/projekty-planowane/ [Accessed: 2021-01-04].
GwPC-ioGCC 2017. Underground Gas Storage Regulatory Considerations : A Guide for State and Federal
Re-gulatory Agencies. [Online]
https://www.exponent.com/knowledge/publications/2017/05/underground-gas-storage-regulatory-considerations/?pageSize=NaN&pageNum=0&loadAllByPageSize=true [Accessed: 2021--02-04].
Hache, E. and Palle, A. 2019. Renewable Energy Source Integration into Power Networks, Research Trends and Policy Implications: A Bibliometric and Research Actors Survey Analysis. Energy Policy 124, pp. 23–35. Hagemann et al. 2016 – Hagemann, B., Rasoulzadeh, M., Panfilov, M., Ganzer, L. and Reitenbach, V. 2016.
Hydro-genization of Underground Storage of Natural Gas: Impact of Hydrogen on the Hydrodynamic and Bio-Che-mical Behavior. Computational Geosciences 20(3), pp. 595–606.
Haghi et al. 2018 – Haghi, E., Raahemifar, k. and Fowler, M. 2018. investigating the Effect of Renewable Energy in-centives and Hydrogen Storage on Advantages of Stakeholders in a Microgrid. Energy Policy 113, pp. 206–222. Hemme, C. and van Berk, w. 2017. Potential Risk of H2s Generation and Release in salt Cavern Gas storage.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 47, pp. 114–123.
Henkel et al. 2014 – Henkel, s., Pudlo, d., werner, L., Enzmann, F., Reitenbach, V., albrecht, d., würdemann, H., Heister, K., Ganzer, l. and Gaupp, R. 2014. Mineral Reactions in the Geological Underground Induced by H2 and CO2 Injections. Energy Procedia 63, pp. 8026–8035.
Holloway, S. 2005. Underground Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide – A Viable Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Option.
Energy 30(11–12 spec. iss.), pp. 2318–2333.
Hosseini, s.E. and wahid, M.a. 2016. Hydrogen Production from Renewable and sustainable Energy Resources: Promising Green Energy Carrier for Clean Development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (May), pp. 850–866.
IEA 2019. Number of EOR Projects in Operation Globally 1971–2017. [Online] www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/ charts/number-of-eor-projects-in-operation-globally-1971-2017 [Accessed: 2020-12-04].
Karnkowski, P.H. and Czapowski, G. 2007. Underground Hydrocarbons Storages in Poland: Actual Investments and Prospects. Przegląd Geologiczny 55(12/1), pp. 1068–1073.
Kruck, O. and Crotogino, F. 2013. Benchmarking of Selected Storage Options – ‘HyUnder’ Project. [Online] http:// hyunder.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/D3.3_Benchmarking-of-selected-storage-options.pdf [Accessed: 2021-02-04].
l’Orange Seigo et al. 2014 – l’Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S. and Siegrist, M. 2014. Public Perception of Carbon Cap-ture and Storage (CCS): A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 38, pp. 848–863.
lankof, l. and Tarkowski, R. 2020. Assessment of the Potential for Underground Hydrogen Storage in Bedded Salt Formation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45(38), pp. 19479–19492.
Lewandowska-Śmierzchalska et al. 2018 – Lewandowska-Śmierzchalska, J., Tarkowski, R. and Uliasz-Misiak, B. 2018. Screening and Ranking Framework for Underground Hydrogen Storage Site Selection in Poland.
Inter-national Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43(8), pp. 4401–4414.
Liu et al. 2015 – Liu, H., Hou, Zhengmeng, Li, X., wei, N., Tan, X. and were, P. 2015. a Preliminary site selec-tion System for a CO2-AGES Project and Its Applicaselec-tion in China. Environmental Earth Sciences 73(11), pp. 6855–6870.
Liu et al. 2017 – Liu, H.J., were, P., Li, Q., Gou, Y. and Hou, Z. 2017. worldwide status of CCUs Technologies and Their Development and Challenges in China. Geofluids 8, 25 pp.
Luboń, k. and Tarkowski, R. 2020. Numerical simulation of Hydrogen injection and withdrawal to and from a deep aquifer in Nw Poland. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45(3), pp. 2068–2083.
Ma et al. 2018 – Ma, J., li, Qi, Kühn, M. and Nakaten, N. 2018. Power-to-Gas Based Subsurface Energy Storage: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 97, pp. 478–496.
Mah et al. 2019 – Mah, a.X.Y., Ho, w.s., Bong, C.P.C., Hassim, M.H., Liew, P.Y., asli, U.a., kamaruddin, M.J. and Chemmangattuvalappil, N.G. 2019. Review of Hydrogen Economy in Malaysia and its way Forward.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44(12), pp. 5661–5675.
Marek et al. 2011 – Marek, s., dziewińska, L. and Tarkowski, R. 2011. The Possibilities of Underground Co2 Sto-rage in the zaosie Anticline. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 27(4), pp. 89–107.
Matos et al. 2019 – Matos, C.R., Carneiro, J.F. and Silva, P.P. 2019. Overview of large-Scale Underground Energy storage Technologies for integration of Renewable Energies and Criteria for Reservoir identification. Journal
of Energy Storage 21, pp. 241–258.
Metz et al. 2005 – Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H.C., loos, M. and Meyer, M. 2005. IPCC
(Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change). IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York.
Ministry of Climate and Environment 2020. Report on the Results of the Monitoring of the Security of Fuel Gas
Supplies – for the Period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019.
Murray et al. 2008 – Murray, M.L., Hugo seymour, E., Rogut, J. and Zechowska, s.w. 2008. stakeholder Percep-tions towards the Transition to a Hydrogen Economy in Poland. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33(1), pp. 20–27.
National Spatial Development Concept 2030 2012. [Online] http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=
wmp20120000252> [Accessed: 2020-12-20].
Nature Conservation Act 2004. Journal of laws 2004 No 92 item 880 as amended.
Nieć, M. 2008. Centenary of the idea of Mineral deposits Protection (Stulecie idei ochrony złóż kopalin).
Gospodar-ka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 24(spec. issue 2/2) (in Polish).
Nordmark, A. and Peira, D. 2003. Civil Reuses of Underground Mine Voids – Training Material.
Nowak, M.J. 2019. Functions of spatial policy instruments (Funkcje narzędzi wykorzystywanych w polityce
prze-strzennej). Studia z Polityki Publicznej 23(3), pp. 79–91 (in Polish).
Panfilov, M. 2010. Underground storage of Hydrogen: in situ self-organisation and Methane Generation. Transport
in Porous Media 85(3), pp. 841–865.
Panfilov, M. 2016. Underground and Pipeline Hydrogen storage. [in:] Compendium of Hydrogen Energy. 1st ed. vol. 2. Elsevier, pp. 91–115.
Parra et al. 2019 – Parra, D., Valverde, l., Pino, F.J. and Patel, M.K. 2019. A Review on the Role, Cost and Value of Hydrogen Energy Systems for Deep Decarbonisation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 101, pp. 279–294.
Peng et al. 2016 – Peng, d.d., Fowler, M., Elkamel, a., almansoori, a. and walker, s.B. 2016. Enabling Utility--Scale Electrical Energy Storage by a Power-to-Gas Energy Hub and Underground Storage of Hydrogen and Natural Gas. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 35, pp. 1180–1199.
PGNiG 2020. Undeground Gas Storage. [Online] <http://pgnig.pl/podziemne-magazyny-gazu> [Accessed: 2020--11-28].
Pottier, J.D. and Blondin, E. 1995. Mass Storage of Hydrogen. Hydrogen Energy System 295, pp. 167–179. Przybycin et al. 2011 – Przybycin, A., Uliasz-Misiak, B. and zawisza, l. 2011. Underground space use: world
wide and in Poland (Sposoby użytkowania górotworu na świecie i w Polsce). Przegląd Geologiczny 59(5), pp. 417–425 (in Polish).
Radecki, w. 2007. Legal Protection of National Parks against External Threats (Based on Examples from ojców Natio-nal Park) (Ochrona parków narodowych przed zagrożeniami zewnętrznymi (na kilku przykładach z Ojcowskiego
Parku Narodowego)). Prace i Materiały Muzeum im. Prof. Władysława Szafera 17, pp. 21–32 (in Polish).
Radwanek-Bąk, B. 2007. Availability of Deposit Areas as a Basic Condition for Rational Management of Mineral
Deposits. [Online] http://geoportal.pgi.gov.pl/portal/page/portal/geosam/publikacje/zloza [Accessed: 2020-
-07-05].
Roberts, T. and Mander, s. 2011. assessing Public Perceptions of CCs: Benefits, Challenges and Methods. Energy
Procedia 4, pp. 6307–6314.
Samsatli, S. and Samsatli, N.J. 2019. The Role of Renewable Hydrogen and Inter-Seasonal Storage in Decarbonising Heat – Comprehensive Optimisation of Future Renewable Energy Value Chains. Applied Energy 233–234, pp. 854–893.
sgobbi et al. 2016 – sgobbi, a., Nijs, w., de Miglio, R., Chiodi, a., Gargiulo, M. and Thiel, C. 2016. How Far Away Is Hydrogen? Its Role in the Medium and long-Term Decarbonisation of the European Energy System.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41(1), pp. 19–35.
Shi et al. 2020 – Shi, z., Jessen, K. and Tsotsis, T.T. 2020. Impacts of the Subsurface Storage of Natural Gas and Hydrogen Mixtures. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45(15), pp. 8757–8773.
Spatial Planning and Land Development Act 2003. Journal of laws 2003, No 80, item 717 as amended.
Stachowski, P. 2008. local Spatial Planning and Spatial Management Based on the Example of the “zielonka Forest” Scenic Park. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska 10, pp. 575–592.
Šliaupa et al. 2013 – Šliaupa, s., Lojka, R., Tasáryova, Z., kolejka, V., Hladík, V., kotulová, J., kucharič, L., Fej-di, V., wójcicki, a., Tarkowski, R., Uliasz-Misiak, B., Šliaupiene, R., Nulle, i., Pomeranceva, R., ivanova, o., Shogenova, A. and Shogenov, K. 2013. CO2 Storage Potential of Sedimentary Basins of Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltic States. Geological Quarterly 57(2).
Tagliapietra et al. 2019 – Tagliapietra, S., zachmann, G., Edenhofer, O., Glachant, J.M., linares, P., and loeschel, A. 2019. The European Union Energy Transition: key Priorities for the next Five Years. Energy Policy 132, pp. 950–954.
Tarkowski, R. 2017. Perspectives of Using the Geological Subsurface for Hydrogen Storage in Poland. International
Tarkowski, R. 2019. Underground Hydrogen Storage: Characteristics and Prospects. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 105, pp. 86–94.
Tarkowski, R. and Czapowski, G. 2018. Salt Domes in Poland – Potential Sites for Hydrogen Storage in Caverns.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43(46), pp. 21414–21427. [Online] http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0360319918331410 [Accessed: 2020-04-15].
Tarkowski, R. and Stopa, J. 2007. Tightness of geological structure destined to underground carbon dioxide storage (Szczelność struktury geologicznej przeznaczonej do podziemnego składowania dwutlenku węgla).
Gospodar-ka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 23(1), pp. 129–137 (in Polish).
Tarkowski, R. and Uliasz-Misiak, B. 2003. Renewable Energy Sources in Guadeloupe’. Applied Energy 74(1–2), pp. 221–228.
Tarkowski, R. and Uliasz-Misiak, B. 2006. Possibilities of CO2 Sequestration by Storage in Geological Media of Major Deep Aquifers in Poland. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 84(9A).
Tarkowski, R. and wdowin, M. 2011. Petrophysical and Mineralogical Research on the influence of Co2 Injection on Mesozoic Reservoir and Caprocks from the Polish lowlands. Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Revue
d’IFP Energies nouvelles 66(1), 137.
Tarkowski et al. 2009 – Tarkowski, R., królik, w., Uliasz-Misiak, B. and Barabasz, w. 2009. indicative Microorgan-isms as a Tool for Testing the Underground Storage of Carbon Dioxide. [In:] Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in
Geological Media : State of the Science, AAPG Studies in Geology 59. 1st edn. ed. by Grobe, M., Pashin, J.C.,
and Dodge, R.l. Tulsa OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, pp. 637–642.
Tarkowski et al. 2009 – Tarkowski, R., Uliasz-Misiak, B. and wójcicki, a. 2009. Co2 Storage Capacity of Deep Aquifers and Hydrocarbon Fields in Poland–EU GeoCapacity Project Results. Energy Procedia 1, pp. 2671–2677.
Tarkowski et al. 2014 – Tarkowski, R., Luboń, k. and Tarkowski, s. 2014. Perception of climate changes and CCs technology – results of surveys of the local community in the example of Tarnów region (Postrzeganie zmian
klimatu oraz CCS – wyniki badań ankietowych społeczności lokalnej na przykładzie okolic Tarnowa). Polityka Energetyczna – Energy Policy Journal 17(1), pp. 85–98 (in Polish).
Tcvetkov et al. 2019 – Tcvetkov, P., Cherepovitsyn, A. and Fedoseev, S. 2019. Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage: A State-of-the-Art Overview. Heliyon 5(12), DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845.
Teodoriu, C. and Bello, O. 2020. A Review of Cement Testing Apparatus and Methods under CO2 Environment and Their impact on well integrity Prediction – where do we stand? Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineer-ing 187, DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106736.
Toleukhanov et al. 2015 – Toleukhanov, a., Panfilov, M., and kaltayev, a. 2015. storage of Hydrogenous Gas Mixture in Geological Formations: Self-Organisation in Presence of Chemotaxis. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 40(46), pp. 15952–15962.
Uliasz-Misiak, B. and Chruszcz-lipska, K. 2017. Hydrogeochemical Aspects Associated with the Mixing of For-mation waters injected into the Hydrocarbon Reservoir. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral
Re-sources Management 33(2), pp. 69–80.
Uliasz-Misiak, B. and Przybycin, A. 2015. The Perspectives and Barriers for the Implementation of CCS in Poland.
Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 6(1), pp. 7–18.
Uliasz-Misiak, B. and Przybycin, A. 2016. Present and Future Status of the Underground Space Use in Poland.
En-vironmental Earth Sciences 75 (22, Art. No. 1430), pp. 1–15.
Uliasz-Misiak, B. and winid, B. 2012. Exploitation of hydrocarbons and protected areas in Poland (Eksploatacja
złóż węglowodorów zlokalizowanych w obszarach chronionych). Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska 14, pp. 919–
–929 (in Polish).
Uliasz-Misiak, B. and winid, B. 2013. Criteria for the valorization of hydrocarbon deposits in terms of their protec-tion (Kryteria waloryzacji złóż węglowodorów w aspekcie ich ochrony). Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska 15(1), pp. 2204–2217 (in Polish).
Verga, F. 2018. what’s Conventional and what’s special in a Reservoir study for Underground Gas storage.
Ener-gies 11(5), DOI: 10.3390/en11051245.
wang et al. 2019 – wang, w., Lyu, s., Zhang, Y. and Ma, s. 2019. a Risk assessment Model of Coalbed Methane Development Based on the Matter-Element Extension Method. Energies 12(20), DOI: 10.3390/en12203931.
wei et al. 2016 – wei, L., Jie, C., deyi, J., Xilin, s., Yinping, L., daemen, J.J.k. and Chunhe, Y. 2016. Tightness and suitability evaluation of abandoned salt caverns served as hydrocarbon energies storage under adverse geological conditions (AGC). Applied Energy 178, pp. 703–720.
wójcicki et al. 2014 – wójcicki, a., Nagy, s., Lubaś, J., Chećko, J. and Tarkowski, R. 2014. Assessment of
Forma-tions and Structures Suitable for Safe CO2 Geological Storage (in Poland) Including the Monitoring Plans
(Summary). warszwa. [online] https://skladowanie.pgi.gov.pl/twiki/pub/Co2/webHome/seq-summ.pdf [Accessed: 2020-11-05].
Yekta et al. 2018 – Yekta, a.E., Pichavant, M. and audigane, P. 2018. Evaluation of Geochemical Reactivity of Hy-drogen in Sandstone: Application to Geological Storage’. Applied Geochemistry 95, pp. 182–194.
Yucekaya, a. 2013. The operational Economics of Compressed air Energy storage systems under Uncertainty.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22, pp. 298–305.
Zaunbrecher et al. 2016 – Zaunbrecher, B.s., Bexten, T., wirsum, M. and Ziefle, M. 2016. what is stored, why, and How? Mental Models, Knowledge, and Public Acceptance of Hydrogen Storage. Energy Procedia 99, pp. 108–119.
use of underground space for tHe storage of selected gases (cH4, H2, and co2) – possible conflicts of interest
K e y wo r d s
underground gas storage, methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, conflict of interest A b s t r a c t
The rational management of underground space, especially when used for various purposes, requires a comprehensive approach to the subject. The possibility of using the same geological struc-tures (aquifers, hydrocarbon reservoirs, and salt caverns) for the storage of CH4, H2 and CO2 may result in conflicts of interest, especially in Poland. These conflicts are related to the use of the rock mass, spatial planning, nature protection, and social acceptance.
The experience in the field of natural gas storage can be transferred to other gases. The geological and reservoir conditions are crucial when selecting geological structures for gas storage, as storage safety and the absence of undesirable geochemical and microbiological interactions with reservoir fluids and the rock matrix are essential. Economic aspects, which are associated with the storage efficiency, should also be taken into account.
The lack of regulations setting priorities of rock mass development may result in the use of the same geological structures for the storage of various gases. The introduction of appropriate provisions to the legal regulations concerning spatial development will facilitate the process of granting licen-ses for underground gas storage. The provisions on area based nature protection should take other methods of developing the rock mass than the exploitation of deposits into account. Failure to do so may hinder the establishment of underground storage facilities in protected areas. Knowledge of the technology and ensuring the safety of underground gas storage should translate into growing social acceptance for CO2 and H2storage.
wykorzystanie podziemnej przestrzeni dla magazynowania wybranycH gazów (cH4, H2 i co2) – możliwE konflikty intErESów
s ł ow a k l u c z owe
dwutlenek węgla, metan, wodór, konflikt interesów, podziemne składowanie/magazynowanie S t r e s z c z e n ie
Zarządzanie podziemną przestrzenią, szczególnie gdy można ją wykorzystać w różnych celach, wymaga kompleksowego podejścia do problemu. Możliwość wykorzystania tych samych struktur geologicznych (poziomów wodonośnych, złóż węglowodorów oraz kawern solnych) do magazynowa-nia CH4, H2 i CO2 może skutkować konfliktami interesów szczególnie w warunkach polskich. kon-flikty te są związane z wykorzystaniem górotworu, planowaniem przestrzennym, ochroną przyrody, społeczną akceptacją.
doświadczenia w magazynowaniu gazu ziemnego można przenieść na magazynowanie pozosta-łych gazów. Przy wyborze struktur geologicznych na magazyny gazów, uwarunkowania geologiczno- -złożowe będą w największym stopniu wpływać na ich magazynowanie. Bezpieczeństwo magazy-nowania oraz brak niepożądanych oddziaływań geochemicznych i mikrobiologicznych z płynami złożowymi i matrycą skalną będą istotnymi czynnikami. Należy także uwzględniać aspekty ekono-miczne i związaną z tym efektywność magazynowania.
wskazano, że brak regulacji prawnych ustalających priorytety w sposobie zagospodarowania górotworu będzie skutkował konkurencją w wykorzystaniu tych samych struktur geologicznych na magazyny różnych gazów. wprowadzenie do uregulowań prawnych dotyczących zagospodarowania przestrzennego terenu odpowiednich zapisów ułatwi wydawanie koncesji na podziemne magazyno-wanie gazów. Nieuwzględnienie w przepisach dotyczących obszarowych form ochrony przyrody in-nych sposobów zagospodarowania górotworu niż eksploatacja złóż może przeszkodzić w zakładaniu podziemnych magazynów w obszarach chronionych. Znajomość technologii i zapewnienie bezpie-czeństwa podziemnego magazynowania gazów powinny się w praktyce przekładać na coraz większą społeczną akceptację dla magazynowania Co2 oraz H2.
